Norfolk Constabulary. Pants On Fire.
May 7, 2008 by inspectorgadget
Shock, Horror, Scandal! A hapless Norfolk Inspector has been caught cynically trying to meet Crime Reduction targets by asking his troops to only crime things that are……well, crimes! What a cheeky fellow!
This is an “ethically recorded” crime damaged window in Norfolk.
Deputy Chief Constable Ian Learmonth of Norfolk Police said:
“We work to very high standards and will not tolerate any attempts to falsify crime figures”.
“The constabulary has one of the best-resourced teams of crime recording auditors in the country - a team of three people dedicated solely to monitoring the ethical recording of crime in the county”
“This demonstrates our commitment to accurate and ethical crime recording processes and it is these processes that lead to accurate data. Further more, we would never allow a Staff Officer to follow our former Chief to London and help him spend £15 grand on hotel rooms, ahem”
Yup. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. Actually, he didn’t say that last bit.
This is a storm damaged window in Ruralshire. Spot the difference?
I would now like to further add to the national scandal by declaring that I don’t want my Response Team to attend road accidents that aren’t, well….. road accidents. They must not go to shops where there is no evidence of shoplifting and they are banned from issuing speeding tickets to drivers who are not speeding.
On a happier note; if the media think this story is bad, wait until they read my book. Oh Lordy, Lordy!
your book will be good!
Actually I can remember when criminal damage under the value of £20 was not crime recordable at all.
And it was £20 in the 1970s when the average house cost £12,700 and a litre of petrol cost 15p
And a Common Assault required the complainant to lay an information to a magistrate. They just never thought it worth the effort. Happy Days!
Control room in 1982…
Control - “Any update re the domestic?”
Amy Reply ” Yes - domestic dispute - parties advised. Next call please”
End+
Fudge, fog and deception, got to keep those numbers down.
Anti social behaviour and youth nuisance. One and the same, but splits a huge figure down into two big ones, only difference is that you are being threatened by a drunken juvenile instead of a drunken adult. But some of these drunken youths can and do kill people, I guess at that point it stops being a nuisance.
Thanks Gadget I would like to link to this one.
Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (Latin: “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”
Descartes
The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not he exists, that is in and of itself proof that he does exist.
Norfolk Police seem to be taking this line a bit far; if a crime is not witnessed, ergo, it did not happen.
Philosophical Policing Strategy perhaps ?
So if I understand this correctly when I phone the nice lady/man in the call centre and report someone has broken the wing mirror on my car, I might if I am really lucky see a police officer in a week or so, who then says are you sure it wasn’t like that when you parked and gives me a ticket for driving a defective vehicle. Correct?
Or if I want to see a police officer in a time frame where the person concerned might be caught, I report a couple having a domestic, who called me a derogatory name ref my Race, Religion, or sexual preference (underline the relevant option) and just out of interest they broke the wing mirror on my car. I can then sit back and if I am really lucky I will get enough time to boil the kettle before two response units, fire arms, and dog unit all roll up to arrest the nasty people? Dog unit is unlikely as is the force helicopter, there will only be one dog unit on duty and they will be as far away as possible without being in the next County. The helicopter will already be in use, or its too foggy, late, or windy (you have got to love Health and Safety).
I think we are in danger of losing sight of how we need to win this argument , this post and the similar one on PC Bloggs site , are exposing the same politicaly mashed up approach .
Correct me if I’m wrong , but we should be lobbying for a return to recording decisions being taken by local police managers , by which I mean the duty Sgt , backed up by the Inspector when required.
Crime quite obvious matters and allow cops to mark off those which have no lines of enquiry pronto .
what the hell is ehtical crime recording anyway ?
Deputy Chief Constable Ian Learmonth of Norfolk Police said:
“We work to very high standards and will not tolerate any attempts to falsify crime figures”.
Clearly, Ian , as I know him, does not have a handle on irony .
It is certain the good council tax payers of Norwich will be chuffed-to-bits that their tax money is being spent on such useful posts as ‘crime recording auditors’. Perhaps Mr Learmont was being ironic by advertising their existence?
A CID colleague and myself were congratulating ourselves the other day. We were beaming because we had dealt with a couple of genuinely serious crimes, locked up the bad guys and helped genuine, real-life victims.
It was a lovely change to the relentless queue of chavs complaining about harassment-by-mobile, and trying to squeeze detections out of petty school-kid squabbles and sad domestics.
I just saw this shocking report about CCTV, reported over here in America. I’m shocked to hear CCTV doesn’t help solve crimes. Did you guys know this? Here’s the link we were provided to the original story in the Guardian. Being American, I have a little trouble understanding some of the words in the article, but I’m sure it will make more sense to you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
I enjoyed the quotes by Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, “Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV.”
Almost sounds like he has his head on straight. But then, fortunately, he redeems himself in the eyes (ears?) of his bosses: “CCTV operators need feedback. If you call them back, they feel valued and are more helpful.” Nice!
Jon
The stuff about CCTV not working is complete tosh. We use it all the time and get LOADS of convictions off the back of it. Everyone at work read that and thought ???
Having said that…. there is NO point in CCTV because the Courts in England never punish anyone anyway.
God Bless America!
I’m pink, therefore I’m spam,
‘a team of three people dedicated solely to monitoring the ethical recording of crime in the county’
And no doubt a team of Police Staff looking at FOI requests and H&S risk assessments and Information Compliance and Diversity Reporting and CRB/vetting checks need I continue? People wonder why there are so few cops to attend the incident of damage or dare I suggest patrolling to stop it in the first place. But of course the PCSOs can do that unless of course they are now taking statements, working front offices, operating as licensing officers or as I have seen recently a spotter in a helicopter - visible police presence maybe but a little difficult to converse with.
“The stuff about CCTV not working is complete tosh. We use it all the time and get LOADS of convictions off the back of it. Everyone at work read that and thought ???”
Wasn’t it Peel who said that the mark of your success would a absence of crime, rather than a lot of evidence that you were doing something about it?
CCTV - Big Brother is watching! He’s just looking the wrong way and needs glasses!
CCTV does solve crime, but doesn’t stop much compared to the sums involved. Its great for seeing who stabbed, robbed, punched who and who blew what up afterwards but its not much use before as a deterrent.
CCTV’s greatest problem is the low standard of the images, i don’t know how some of the cameras can even be called cameras given the trade descriptions act.
The suggestion that it only helps is 3% of crime is probably correct but then perhaps with better cameras and sighting we could push that to 5% but that’s it. To get it higher we would need to start putting them in peoples TV’s in peoples houses ………….
The fallacy that CCTV is as powerful as it claims is nothing more than a marketing bollocks designed to reasure the fearful (and sell more CCTV) Think of it like an adults equivilant of a child hiding under their magic duvet which will protect them from the monsters.
Of course the major difference is that these monsters are real and CCTV’s metaphorical duvet is in actuality about as effective as a real duvet in stopping their attacks.
Still after the monsters gobble us all up then at least we will know who they are, sometimes, maybe, if the images are good enough, possibly.
My only other real issue with CCTV is that they don’t keep anyone safe but are sold to local communities as a panacea to do just that. They aren’t a replacement for actual Policing no matter how snazzy they make the latest duvet look. That however is the genius of CCTV marketing, no matter how effective it is everyone wants it, be they the watchers or the watchees. Its like everyone has bought into the lie. I have even seen CCTV deployed through envy where one estate lobbied their local council for it because another estate had it, despite both estates knowing it wouldn’t help as much as it claims it will.
CCTV is just another investigative tool and should only be considered as that, it wont keep you safe, accept that and we can all start living in the real world once more.
CCTV would be even better if there were more people watching it and they zoomed, panned or did what ever they do it CCTV land to get detailed evidence for things that go on. On blanket wall of monitors all set on random with a big oversight but so little detail much of what goes on is missed. At the CTCC we are reviewing our CCTV to see what all the fuss is about. Sadly our council see everything in the blinkered limitation of fiscal prudence.
As with most other things, what should be a great addition has had short cuts made because of the type of camera, focus or zoom limitations or simply not enough human eyes waiting for something to happen so they can zoom in and get the closer picture. We have only scratched the surface of proper use with a serious look at crime detection. There are countless benefits if investment in quality cameras are complimented by staff who are both interested and on the ball.
Will
Yes. He also said:
“No minister ever stood, or could stand, against public opinion”
Also, they didn’t have CCTV back then!
Thanks for the comment.
“[Andy Hayman] has been asked to explain at least £15,000 expenses that included claims for “inordinate amounts” of drinking with colleagues.
“Apart from the money, what happens if they are all out drinking when a bomb goes off?”
said one Met official.”
Well that would be two exploding up something at the same time.